It is not numerical because God is three in some sense. It is generic, but I can further qualify. I mean fully in the sense of revelation. The Son reveals who God is. Otherwise we are left with ghosts in our mind.

"The Son is fully God, but God is not fully the Son. The ghost of Clark in me speaks."

Is this like "Jesus is fully man but man is not fully Jesus?"

So 'man' is used differently in both cases, like 'God' is used differently? If they're used in the same sense, this isn't Clarkian, it's apparently contradictory. Now, if it's meant that Jesus is fully human, but that the generic 'human' isn't fully Jesus, since people other than Jesus are human, then it looks like Jesus is just an instance of Godness, and thus we have tritheism. The ghost of Van Til in me speaks.

Paul: So 'man' is used differently in both cases, like 'God' is used differently?

Vytautas: No, I am using 'God' in the same sense.

Paul: If they're used in the same sense, this isn't Clarkian, it's apparently contradictory.

Vytautas: No, because Clark would have wanted to ease apparent tension. My statement seems to be without tension.

Paul: Now, if it's meant that Jesus is fully human, but that the generic 'human' isn't fully Jesus, since people other than Jesus are human, then it looks like Jesus is just an instance of Godness, and thus we have tritheism.

Vytautas: Godness is expressed in Jesus, but humanity cannot be compared with Godness.

Paul: The ghost of Van Til in me speaks.

Vytautas: Our ghosts have passed through many eyes, so let us put the party spirit aside.

Aren't the ousia and the persons "different?" or is the ousia a "person," for starters.

"Vytautas: No, because Clark would have wanted to ease apparent tension. My statement seems to be without tension."

I don't see how. Presumably, you believe that there's numerically only *one* divine entity, 'God,' and Jesus is fully divine, i.e., a divine entity, then it appears that Jesus is identical to God. Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the other persons. Moreover, if there's numerically only *one* divine entity, God, and Jesus "is fully" God, then it appears that God is fully the son, esp. if, as you say, the terms are being used in the same way. Of course, there's solutions, like your social trinitarian solution, but those solutions have problems, like yours seems, if it's only the 'is' of predication, to lead to tritheism.

"Vytautas: Our ghosts have passed through many eyes, so let us put the party spirit aside."

I merely copied what you wrote with a minor change. So if we were to leave "party spirit aside," one wonders why you brought it up in the first place. Anywho, let's leave the Puritanboard-esk, stiff upper lip, allergies to humor out of it.

Saint Augustine: That the Son is Very God, of the Same Substance with the Father. Not Only the Father, But the Trinity, is Affirmed to Be Immortal. All Things are Not from the Father Alone, But Also from the Son. That the Holy Spirit is Very God, Equal with the Father and the Son.

Paul: Aren't the ousia and the persons "different?" or is the ousia a "person," for starters.

Vytautas: Yes, the ousia and the persons are "different". But where do we go from here?

Paul: I don't see how. Presumably, you believe that there's numerically only *one* divine entity, 'God,' and Jesus is fully divine, i.e., a divine entity, then it appears that Jesus is identical to God. Same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the other persons. Moreover, if there's numerically only *one* divine entity, God, and Jesus "is fully" God, then it appears that God is fully the son, esp. if, as you say, the terms are being used in the same way. Of course, there's solutions, like your social trinitarian solution, but those solutions have problems, like yours seems, if it's only the 'is' of predication, to lead to tritheism.

Vytautas: My confession is about the Son reveling God. And what you are saying fleshes out the paradox. There are paradoxes in our understanding, but why must we confess it as paradoxical? God is not our understanding.

Paul: I merely copied what you wrote with a minor change. So if we were to leave "party spirit aside," one wonders why you brought it up in the first place. Anywho, let's leave the Puritanboard-esk, stiff upper lip, allergies to humor out of it.

"My confession is about the Son reveling God. And what you are saying fleshes out the paradox. There are paradoxes in our understanding, but why must we confess it as paradoxical? God is not our understanding."

I didn't say anything about you confessing it or not. You appealed to the ghost of Clark, and I had to put him back in the grave. To reorientate yourself to the dialectic, you wrote, "My statement seems to be without tension." I showed you how the tension is drawn out. If you admit paradox, you're no medium for Clark.

Paul: I didn't say anything about you confessing it or not. You appealed to the ghost of Clark, and I had to put him back in the grave.

Vytautas: He still lives within my heart.

Paul: To reorientate yourself to the dialectic, you wrote, "My statement seems to be without tension." I showed you how the tension is drawn out. If you admit paradox, you're no medium for Clark.

Vytautas: Given that the Son is fully God does not mean that the Son is three persons. The Son fully reveals God in terms of revelation and not in ousia.

You said this earlier:

"if it's meant that Jesus is fully human, but that the generic 'human' isn't fully Jesus, since people other than Jesus are human, then it looks like Jesus is just an instance of Godness, and thus we have tritheism."

It seems to confuse humaness and Godness. And if that is the case, then the argument does not lead tritheism.

"Given that the Son is fully God does not mean that the Son is three persons. The Son fully reveals God in terms of revelation and not in ousia."

We all know what that it diesn't *mean* that, the problem is that the trinitarian statements, along with other metaphysical truths, seem to *imply* these kinds of things.

Again, if there is numerically only one thing, x, and y is "fully" x, then it seems y = x. But then, some claim that z is "fully" x. Which, if there's numerically one x, then it seems that z = x; and if so, then z = y. But, z =/= y. Paradox.

The problem is what we *mean* as trinitarians, that's pretty easy: one god, three person, and he's not one in the sense he's three. That's not where the problems come in.

I've also not heard anything from you on the unity of the godhead. Looks to me like you said it was a "generic" identity. Well, generic identity is a class of identity. Vytautus is g= to humanness. But he's not n= to humanness. I am g= to humanness, but not n= to humanness. Vytautus and Paul are two humans. Looks like Jesus and the father are two gods. The problem doesn't step from equivocating on humanness and godness, it stems from generic identity.

Paul: We all know what that it doesn't *mean* that, the problem is that the trinitarian statements, along with other metaphysical truths, seem to *imply* these kinds of things.

Vytautas: The difference between you and me is how theology should be done. You are more analytical, whereas I am more confessional.I am just a slavish follower of the two Clarks.

Paul: Again, if there is numerically only one thing, x, and y is "fully" x, then it seems y = x. But then, some claim that z is "fully" x. Which, if there's numerically one x, then it seems that z = x; and if so, then z = y. But, z =/= y. Paradox.

Vytautas: The problem is the meaning of "is fully". I take to mean a revelatory sense and not an ontological sense. We only know the latter from the former.

Paul: The problem is what we *mean* as trinitarians, that's pretty easy: one God, three persons, and he's not one in the sense he's three. That's not where the problems come in.

Vytautas: My disagreement is over how theology should be stated; not how it should be understood.

Paul: I've also not heard anything from you on the unity of the Godhead. Looks to me like you said it was a "generic" identity. Well, generic identity is a class of identity. Vytautus is g= to humanness. But he's not n= to humanness. I am g= to humanness, but not n= to humanness. Vytautus and Paul are two humans. Looks like Jesus and the Father are two gods. The problem doesn't step from equivocating on humanness and godness, but it stems from generic identity.

Vytautas: I assumed generic identity meant unspecified identity. If generic identity means what you are saying, then I recant my confession that it is in the generic sense. Perhaps my ghost is giving up.